Bernie Sanders is a socialist populist. His unfamiliarity with the fundamentals of economics explains why he considers Denmark to be socialist. A former Danish Prime Minister once implicitly addressed such claims, noting that Denmark’s economy is not socialist, but rather a market economy. But the truth does not matter to American leftists.
He has now made headlines again with a bill that would expand state participation in the AI sector—a plan that, contrary to the claims of his supporters, could have disastrous consequences. In the following, these consequences are briefly examined.
This Is a Fascist Policy
Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, after the Soviet Union, were among the countries with the highest levels of state ownership and state control over the economy. In both Germany and Italy, the state controlled many companies, while private firms operated under strict state supervision and intervention. The Nazis nationalized nearly half of the economy and then used extensive regulations to bring the private sector under state control. Mussolini followed a similar approach. The state determined what goods would be produced, how they would be produced, and in what form they would be supplied.
Sanders says that artificial intelligence does not belong to billionaires but to the people. Fascists and Nazis used the same argument—that the private sector should be organized in line with the public interest—to justify extensive intervention in the market. In fact, Hitler and Mussolini were able to control the means of production in much the same way without removing corporate managers.
Comparing Sanders to fascism may seem unusual, but it should not be forgotten that the main leaders of Italian fascism, including Mussolini, were initially socialists before they became fascists. In fact, as Thomas DiLorenzo argues in his book The Problem with Socialism, fascism had socialist origins.
Regarding state ownership and state influence over AI, Sanders and Trump take similar approaches. Trump himself has admitted that the economic views of his voters and Sanders’s voters “aren’t that far apart”—and that may be one of the few honest statements Trump has made in his life. In fact, both are populists and seek to expand state power and weaken the free market economy.
Therefore, Sanders’s proposal, or similar proposals, could allow the state to gain control over the AI industry while preserving the appearance of private ownership. In that sense, such proposals can reasonably be described as fascistic, since they enable state control over production without formally abolishing the private sector.
A Threat to Civil Liberties
States have always used intelligence agencies and affiliated institutions to restrict social freedoms, silence opponents, and monitor users online. They also pressure various platforms to hand over user data so it can be used to suppress dissent. If the state becomes the owner of artificial intelligence companies, it will be able to collect users’ information freely and without any obstacles.
Sanders’s supporters might privately believe that this would be a useful tool for monitoring opponents, allowing the state to identify and silence those who oppose their leftist ideology. However, it must be remembered that this power is being granted to the state, not to a specific political party. If figures like Trump—or any other authoritarian personality—come to power, this authority will fall into their hands, allowing them to suppress those very same leftists. It empowers states to monitor anyone they deem an “undesirable element.” Ultimately, this could pose a serious threat to liberty.
Politicians already possess considerable power; control over artificial intelligence would multiply that power many times over—and more power brings more corruption.
Weakening Innovation
This policy threatens innovation. State favoritism can make it difficult for new and creative players to enter the market and can slow the process of “creative destruction.” It should also be noted that the managers of AI companies might even welcome such a situation, since it could allow them to eliminate new competitors in the industry and reach a monopolistic position.
After all, once the state enters the field, companies could rely on the support of politicians so they no longer have to compete with non-American companies. They might even use the argument that the state is a shareholder in AI companies to justify banning the use of AI systems from other countries in the United States.
The support of some AI companies’ executives for proposals that would lead to state involvement in this industry is highly suspicious. We will have to wait and see what happens, but it is possible that Sanders’s bill could actually help those same billionaires eliminate their competitors.
Technology Should Not Be Held Back
Obstructing technological growth is both foolish and harmful. The claim that artificial intelligence destroys jobs is a deceptive and misleading argument. Opposing AI in order to preserve certain jobs is just as irrational as trying to stop the spread of the internet because the use of email caused some postal workers to lose their jobs.
By the same logic, we should have banned the light bulb because it led to job losses in the candle-making industry. Likewise, we should have abandoned modern textile machinery because it allowed the same amount of clothing to be produced with fewer workers.
If we follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, we would have to return to the Stone Age. Innovation should not be stopped. Technological advancement and innovation are the primary engines of productivity growth and rising living standards. Just as old jobs disappear, new employment opportunities emerge. For example, many workers from traditional industries can find work in newer and more productive sectors of the economy. We should not hinder the growth of industries that can improve the lives of billions of people merely to preserve the jobs of a limited number of individuals.
A Populist Claim
Artificial intelligence, like any other industry, is built by entrepreneurs and producers, and its products are exchanged in the marketplace. The assertion that, “AI does not belong to billionaires; it belongs to the people” is akin to claiming that potatoes do not belong to their farmers but to “the people,” and that therefore, 50 percent of all farmland must be seized by the state.
Sanders is a master of slogans like “Billionaires shouldn’t exist,” and he is strategic in this choice. Were he to replace “billionaires” with “millionaires,” the slogan would inevitably implicate him and leftist celebrities. It benefits him to funnel jealousy toward billionaires, thereby shielding himself from public outrage.
If wealth is inherently evil, then being a millionaire is equally so. In that case, the left would be forced to chant slogans such as “Millionaires should not exist”—or perhaps even say, “Damn Sean Penn, Oprah, and Sanders.” After all, they are all millionaires.
The benefits of AI do not accrue solely to billionaires; billions of people worldwide utilize these tools—in medicine, education, and thousands of other fields. If private companies, absent rent-seeking or government handouts, earn profits through innovation and creativity, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. No one is forced to use AI; those who choose to do so effectively vote with their dollars to reward the companies that provide these services. One can only hope that Sanders has not used these tools or maintained an AI account himself—because if he has, he has been lining the pockets of the very capitalists he claims to despise.
The Abuse of a Public Wealth Fund
Politicians can abuse national wealth funds. In Russia, Vladimir Putin has leveraged the National Wealth Fund to bankroll the war in Ukraine. The US state could just as easily exploit such a fund to finance war or violate human rights. In this scenario, revenues generated from AI would be diverted away from vital investments in innovation and instead channeled into the production of bombs to be dropped on innocent people.
Conclusion
Regrettably, politicians from both major American parties seem determined to undermine the free market and the values of classical liberalism. From Trump’s foolish tariffs to Sanders’s socialist and demagogic policies, both are actively eroding the foundations of economic freedom.
Americans should not feel compelled to choose between economic nationalism and socialism, just as they were never truly forced to choose between fascism and socialism in the twentieth century. There is only one path worth pursuing: the defense of libertarian values.
The real solution to improving living standards lies in the state’s complete withdrawal from all economic and social spheres. Unless the American public shifts its focus toward the ideals of classical liberalism or libertarianism, we will continue to witness a cycle of populism from both parties, as well as state obstruction of growth and innovation.
